Employment Insurance (EI)

Decision

[1] The appeal is allowed. I find that the Commission was not justified in reconsidering the Appellant’s claim.

Overview

[2] The Appellant made a claim for benefits on August 22, 2013. On March 20, 2019, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) informed the Appellant that she had not reported earnings she received for the weeks of June 29, 2014; July 6, 2014; July 13, 2014; and July 20, 2014. The Commission also informed the Appellant that it had imposed a penalty because the Appellant had provided false or misleading information.

[3] On June 20, 2019, the Commission reconsidered its decision. It adjusted the earnings based on the information the Appellant provided, and it rescinded the penalty that it had imposed. The Appellant does not deny receiving the earnings; she argues that she sent her pay stubs to the Service Canada office in July and August 2014, and, for that reason, the Commission was not justified in reconsidering her claim for benefits in 2019.

[4] I must determine whether the Commission was justified in reconsidering the Appellant’s claim beginning August 18, 2013.

Issue

[5] Was the Commission justified in reconsidering the Appellant’s claim?

Analysis

Was the Commission justified in reconsidering the Appellant’s claim?

[6] The Commission may reconsider a claim for benefits within 36 months after the benefits have been paid. If, in the opinion of the Commission, a false statement has been made, the time can be extended to 72 months.^{Footnote 1}

[7] To reconsider a claim for benefits within 72 months, the Commission does not have the burden of proving that the Appellant “knowingly” made false statements; rather, the Commission has that burden when it imposes a penalty.^{Footnote 2}

[8] Therefore, the Commission may reconsider a claim for benefits if, in its opinion, a false or misleading statement has been made.^{Footnote 3}

[9] The Commission submits that the salary the Appellant received constitutes earnings. It states that it initially considered the earnings the employer reported on the Record of Employment, and, because the employer did not confirm the amounts, it reconsidered its decision in light of the Appellant’s reported earnings.

[10] The Appellant argues that she sent her pay statements to the Service Canada office on July 18, 2014, and August 4, 2014, and that the Commission had the correct information at that time.

[11] I note that the Record of Employment that the employer compiled on August 5, 2014, contains no detailed information about the Appellant’s earnings. The Record of Employment indicates that the Appellant supposedly received total insurable earnings of $1,134.74.^{Footnote 4}

[12] Section 52(5) of the Act refers to a false or misleading statement regarding a claim, and that provision does not require that the false statement be made by the Appellant. However, as the Commission argues, the employer could not be contacted to check the Appellant’s reported earnings. Therefore, according to its record, the Commission considered the information the Appellant sent in July and August 2014 to be correct.

[13] I am of the view that the pay statements the Appellant sent the Commission on July 18, 2014, and August 4, 2014, show that she reported the correct amounts she received to the Commission.

[14] Even though the Appellant had reported receiving no salary on her weekly reports (which the record does not show), the evidence shows that, for the weeks of June 29, 2014, July 6, 2014, and July 13, 2014, the Appellant sent the Commission her pay statements confirming the correct information; she sent that information on July 18, 2014, and August 4, 2014. There was no false or misleading statement regarding the Appellant’s claim for benefits beginning August 18, 2013, before the Commission. The Commission tried to confirm with the employer the information that the Appellant sent, but it was unsuccessful. As a result, the Commission considered the information the Appellant reported to be correct, and it rescinded the penalty.

[15] The Commission may, at any time in a specific period, reconsider its decision and, if it decides that a person has received an amount for which they did not qualify, it must calculate the amount due or payable and notify the claimant.^{Footnote 5}

[16] The Commission sent the Appellant a letter during the fall of 2018 asking the Appellant to confirm the earnings received and indicating that she had reported receiving [translation] “$0” for the weeks beginning June 29, 2014; July 6, 2014; July 13, 2014; and July 20, 2014. However, the record shows that the Appellant had sent the Commission her pay statements for those periods on July 18, 2014, and August 4, 2014.^{Footnote 6}

[17] There was no false or misleading information before the Commission.^{Footnote 7} Even though the Appellant had experienced certain difficulties with the employer, she sent the pay statements as the officer had asked her, and the Commission considered that information to be correct and rescinded the penalty.

[18] I must make the decision on a balance of probabilities and, given the circumstances in the record, I cannot find that there were false or misleading statements before the Commission. The evidence shows that the Appellant sent the Commission her pay statements on July 18, 2014, and August 4, 2014, to confirm the earnings received the weeks of June 29, 2014; July 6, 2014; and July 13, 2014. The first pay statement had a pay period end date of July 6, 2014, and the second had a pay period end date of July 20, 2014.^{Footnote 8}

[19] The Commission was unable to confirm with the employer the information that the Appellant sent. I cannot infer from this situation that there was false or misleading information before the Commission. Given that the Appellant sent the Commission the pay statements on July 18, 2014, and August 4, 2014, showing the earnings received for the periods in question, I find that the Commission was able to reconsider the Appellant’s decision within 36 months and not within 72 months.^{Footnote 9}

[20] In this case, the time for reconsidering the Appellant’s claim for benefits beginning August 18, 2013, was established as soon as the initial decision was made on March 22, 2019.

[21] I find that the Commission was not justified in reconsidering the Appellant’s claim for benefits.

Conclusion

[22] The appeal is allowed.